This exploration was triggered by a comment to me by Fabio Barone in a private YW space:
    Larry, maybe we are just too impatient…I am starting to think that the first foremost important issue to the level of collaboration and communication you are referring to maybe to drop our egos even more…if we who are yearning for a “better” world are still entrapped in egos, how about the others…maybe we need to trust the building up of momentum for things to change; indeed there’s quite a lot going on. I am sure you know the metaphor of the pond and the lilies, in 30 days of doubling coverage every day, at which day is it half full? [Larry’s postings to which Fabio replied are attached at the end of this post.]


  • Maybe there are already too many lilies and we need more variety; but we are hypnotized by lilies and diverted from seeking variety by our drive to create lilies?  What if the pond fills with lilies and nothing of relevance happens?  What do you anticipate happening beyond increasing the population of lilies?
  • What actually are the lilies – from a transcendent viewpoint?
  • Might the lilies be mini Towers of Babel, seemingly related, but only superficially (relative to our real potentials and needs)?  With the new linking technologies our productions may be more connected that before, but the degree of person-to-person structural coupling (influencing each other’s mind/worlds) may have weakened.
  • Might the structure/pattern of most online discourse be too DILUTED and too ATOMIZED; with the maybe too many links masking the FLATNESS of the domain?
  • The above sentences illustrate the need for depth unpacking, which appears difficult with contemporary media. Why is this issue, itself, almost invisible?
  • The above queries highlight my impatience – impatient that domains I deem critical remain ignored.  Actually, I am far too patient – being willing to “wait and see”, share insights but avoid being disruptive.  Who am I to claim a unique and essential perspective; keep varying my production and hope someone notices at sufficient depth? Even my avoiding learning totally new means for presentation exposes my deeper patience.  I sit at my computer daily viewing the clear signs that the Tsunami is rising faster and faster, including a few others also pointing at these signs (actually providing the signs) and yet most concerned believing we somehow have enough time – to do what?
  • Consider two levels of WHAT TO DO?  Level 1 is what we read about, hundreds of thousands of TODOs. Stop burning coal, start massive development of clean energy, dampen consumption, liberate women, reform education, return to civility, more transparency, etc., etc., etc.  Level 2 includes serious proposals for actually achieving interactive systems of Level 1 actions.  Level 2 TODOs either remain subconscious in the species or are currently blocked from adequate expression.
  • PROPOSITION FOR CONSIDERATION:   EVERY DISCOURSE ABOUT REALITY IS OUT OF CONTEXT !!!!  We are deeply locked-into a Crisis-of-Crises (as my mentor, John R. Platt pointed out in 1969 – to which I then responded with a paper: The Technology of Non-Violent Revolution, the start of the emergence of nuet).  No major crisis can be solved in isolation from the others – the WHOLE CONTEXT.
  • It is the whole Crisis-of-Crises (which includes a vast complex of OPPORTUNITIES as well as DANGERS – but both interact and we cannot tackle one set without attending to the other set) that must become our CONCRETE COLLECTIVE FOCUS (even if individuals can’t).  WHAT ARE WE NOT YET DOING,  on the ground, in our Here&Now related to this issue?  What new and significant behavior must we begin to see emerge in cyberspace?

I make a brief suggestion here, which I will explicate further and post elsewhere.  Take our lessons from the successful practices of SCIENCE and SCHOLARSHIP.  The focus of these human enterprises was emerging, complex Semiotic Structures, “bodies of text”.  What distinguishes this activity from contemporary online discourse is that new (in the old form) contributions refereed explicitly to CONTENT in the existing “body of text”.  The organization of this in cross referenced scientific and scholarly journals and published books is far, far from ideal (and not to be emulated in the future – we need alternatives); but it was a CONCRETE (tangible, if large and unwieldy) TOPIC OF FOCUS.

  •     This practice exists today among populations coding or designing apps, and possibly in the collaborative construction of critical documents. But, these efforts are not scaling up to provide us a CONCRETE TABLEAU on which to anchor our actions re our Crisis-of-Crises.
  •     I query whether searching and other data mining techniques actually enable emergence of coherence patterns that will actually be useful to human teams? I flounder here, trying to express a distinction only dimly imagined.  Am I calling for the re-emergence of Grand Theory Making, which the new technologies claim to have relegated to the historical dustbin (and enabled the eruptionn of non-evidence backed, attitude/belief founded, kook-conspiratorial theories about everything).
  •     Exciting research on Global Minds or Brains is pointed in the right direction, but somehow (and I need help in uncovering this) is missing critical dimensions.  I speculate that these have to do with how our personal mind/brains process and contribute to the external semiotic structures and how our interactions with each other have subtly changed with the new patterns of online/digital mediated activity.  Within our highly interactive online discourse individuals are learning and changing in ways much faster than before – which gives us the impression of “progress” – and there is progress in many dimensions. We are achieving coherence in those domains of attention (enabled by our media), but are neglecting needed coherence in domains which our media make difficult to engage at the required depth. These are probably also domains requiring shifts of context/paradigms/assumptions that seem only to aggravate conflict within message exchange media.
  •     More on this later/elsewhere – where I am  (alone at this time) exploring wholly new types human-human relationships: Pattern Bonds – see my end of this doc.

This brings me back to my repeated call these past months for an examination of just what is happening in cyberspace and the exploding social media. Although how most people are using/changing is important, I refer to what we call our Emergent Edge, our “Best&Brightest”, those sites and actions we so energetically curate to each other.   Is Fabio right that we need to be patient and see what emerges from this turbulent chaos of hyper creativity?  Or, might “some of us” try to explore what emerges might look like and might “some of us” need to also create technologies to further the manifestation of these new things?  Must our creativity be limited to playing with variation and letting the selection be governed by deterministic forces we abandon any attempt to comprehend or influence?

I fully realize that commenting here I am contributing to the process I deem inadequate – although I do attempt to comment on content of prior sems. I am feeling more and more  like a frustrated crumegeon, A Minority of One, finding empathy with Jaron Lanier in his critique of the web. I would rest were it not that I don’t yet see humankind acting in a way to insure its multi-millennial survival/thrival as Humanity/Gaia as she has the full potential to act.

Larry Victor  Jan 30, 2013

        Dan, great assemblage of future potentials.  Have you considered a taxonomy of types of visions of futures?  I find nuet’s future in a totally unique category of all the multitude of other visions, which themselves have categorical distinctions.  This is a query to be explored later.
        I’ve read and knew Grof.  I was part of his Holotropic Breath-work powerful session during the weekend of the beginning of the first Gulf War.  It was awesome.  His books are powerful. For awhile I was part of his Spiritual Emergency Network.
        Yet, Grof’s – and Lipton’s visions have, from nuet’s world, vast gaps. All seem out of context. For Lipton, we must go beyond spontaneity. For Grof and Siegel, biology is only part of the story. They all know this, but bias is a human trait.
        My query, not to elevate nuet, but asking WHY is there no synergy or movement forward for more than HUNDREDS of such powerful visions. It has been four decades since THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY (Marilyn Ferguson)  and there is no evidence of “breathing together” (conspiring) occurring then or now. We talk endlessly of collaboration and synergy, but it just isn’t happening fast enough or with sufficient scope and power.  WHY?  From nuet’s perspective it remains a Tower of Babel, with a lot of exciting Jabber convincing us otherwise.
        How might we formulate an expedition to discover whether or not the needed synergy is actually emerging; and if not, what to do to push it along?  Time is getting short.
        Is it safe to assume that it will, soon, happen spontaneously?  Is there something MORE that we could be doing? Is our comprehension of collaboration, cooperation, synergy, etc. ADEQUATE?
        Is our comprehension of comprehension adequate??

    Larry Victor  Jan 31, 2013

        We probably need to unpack many concepts and conceptual schemes to different levels and scopes. Collaboration, Cooperation, Dialog, Discourse, Deciding, Synergy, Comprehension. Empathy.  Maybe we should begin to assign distributions to these, and not some fixed form. How many different “frames of thinking” are active in the population?
        Everything must start with small numbers of mind/brains – at much greater depth of mutual exploration or structural coupling than currently encouraged by social media.  A strongly bonded web of such relationships needs to spread through the population; where the connectivity is that everyone in the extended web (net) is linked by degrees to all others.  Not just knowing their names or a few details. The whole web links immediate perceptual spaces.
        I feel that these new powerful relationships, I am tentatively calling Pattern Bonds (PB), will require quality seafing to emerge – and the technology of this seafing remains a challenge to develop.  The collected record of the bonding interaction, processed for access, would be a major component of the whole mix. PB is the most recent form of the basic relationships I envisioned seafed by the Bootastrap UPLIFT Scaffolding (BUS).  Some scattered text on this are in some of my more recent blog items in .
        IDEA:  Might there also develop seafed bonds between PAIRS of PB bonded persons? Another level of potential interactivity.
        The problem is: discourse in this modality cannot move us to the next level and I doubt it will spontaneously emerge from this level of discourse.  Posting and Commenting is a grossly inadequate framework to emerge what is bursting at the seams to bloom.    Admitting I lack specific knowledge of many of the new technologies emergent, but from what I have seen I interpret them as only strengthening the existing processes and in doing so may make it more difficult to actually move to new levels. This is only nuet’s gut feeling.
        IDEA: Are all of nuet’s ideas taken by the tech developers as content to be facilitated by their innovations – but don’t contain any useful insights that might inform tech development itself??

Author: nuet

01/24/1935. BS-physics RPI 1956; MS-physics UofChicago 1958; PhD-physics Yale 1965; PhD-Edu Psy Uof MInnesota 1970. Auroral Research Byrd Station, Antarctica 11/1960-02/1962. MINNEMAST curriculum dev 1964-68. Woodstock. faculty Pima Community College, Tucson 1974-1997. Transdisciplinary scientist, philosopher, educator, futurist, activist. PC user since 1982. "Wife". daughter, 2 grandsons. 5 dogs & 7 cats. Lacks mental imagery in all sensory domains.

Sort: Newest | Oldest